97

1.—9

so on. Does not that imply that they had vouchers for all these payments in Schedule C, with the exception of one?—We have not seen the vouchers. They have not been produced to us. 24. The Chairman.] What would their language convey ?—Their report leads one to suppose that they had vouchers, which, Mr. Duthie says, was borne out by the cash-book and the bank-book. That we distinctly deny. 25. Mr. Duthie.] Take page 35. You do not deny the evidence of any of the witnesses that you have before you ?—Yes. 26. In page 35 the Mayor stated, " He had to add that the special auditor reported that when he made the audit the whole of the vouchers were there, but now there were not sufficient vouchers to make up the total. The vouchers now in the office were not sufficient to make up the amount which the report stated had actually been paid "? [Exhibit F] —Yes. 27. You have seen that ?—No. 28. Do you see it now?— Yes. 29. So that, so far as the Mayor of the Borough is concerned, the vouchers were missing, and there is confirmation from him that as Mayor he had received that statement from these auditors at that date ?—I do not say the voucher was no good. It was not paid. 30. lam asking you? —I have not got to do with what the Mayor says. 31. Then as for Schedule C. For 1880 the statement shows that there were sixteen vouchers for £354. Those vouchers were referred to by the special auditors?— Yes. 32. You have had the vouchers and the receipts placed in your hands. There are four of them, and a Bill. Have you them there? —Yes. 33. You have one dated 13th May, corresponding with the Schedule C. It is paid, is it not, upon the 17th November? —Yes ; paid on the 17th November. 34. You have another dated 22nd July, for £6 ? —Yes. 35. It is paid upon the 24th December? —Yes. 36. You have another voucher dated the 16th September, paid upon the 31st January, for £12 ? —Yes. 37. You have another, dated the 25th November, for £18, paid upon the 21st March?— Yes. 38. Is it not reasonable, Mr. Kember, seeing that in all instances where vouchers are produced, that the payment is subsequent. Is it not reasonable, that unless they were missing, to expect that the date of payment would be somewhat proportionately subsequent?— No. 39. Would you be so kind as to turn to the bank-book? —Yes. 40. On the 10th May is a.payment, No. 92, for £12 ?—Yes. 41. On the 26th June there is another for £12 ?—Yes. 42. On the 31st July there is another for £24 ?—Yes. 43. On the 29th July there is another for £36? —Yes 44. On the 26th August there is a payment for £12 ?—Yes. 45. On the 2nd September there is a payment for £36? —Yes. 46. On the 17th November there is a payment for £18 ?—Yes. 47. On the 12th October there is a payment for £12?— Yes. 48. On the 16th October there is a payment for £24?— Yes. 49. On the 10th July that bill was paid, £96, with interest, equalling £98 10s ?—Yes. 50. On the 24th November there is a payment for £24 ?—Yes, on the 24th November. 51. On the 31st January, 1881, there is a cheque for £12 ?—Yes. 52. The amount of these cheques and bill is £344 10s. ?—Yes. 53. And the amount of the vouchers is £354 ?—Well, we will take this as being correct. 54. Then the amount of the vouchers, including the bill, for which receipts are held, is £150? —There is no receipt for the bill. 55. But there is a receipt itself? —That does not answer. 56. The amount of the vouchers, with the bill, is £150 ? —Yes, that is right. 57. That is the state of the account for 1880?— No, excuse me, that is the state of the Borough's account, not Nathaniel Seddon's account. 58. Has the latter, " Debits to Streets Account " or " Others Works," received your attention for that year?— Yes. 59. Eunning through the whole items, I suppose, you will admit that approximately the same amount is debited to " Works " ?—Yes. 60. Well, now, seeing that these vouchers, as per Schedule C, which the auditors say they had, are confirmed and borne out by those pass-book payments —the special auditors' reports are borne out by approximately corresponding bank payments, although at subsequent dates. Seeing that they had these vouchers in their hands, do you feel justified in saying that you are sure Schedule C is totally unreliable ?—I say so now more than ever. I think it is the most abominable and unreliable thing I ever saw made out. There is no date corresponding in it, or anything. It seems to be entirely wrong. 61. You have, I think, already recognised that the dates which these auditors used were the dates of the vouchers, or apparently the dates, which they passed the Council and not the date of payment? —The due date of the payment of the wages. 62. Approximately so? —Yes. 63. Yet, seeing that they have been borne out, you say it is unreliable ?—Worse than unreliable. It cannot be borne out. Any corresponding payment in a cash-book or bank-book cannot possibly be fixed. Any voucher they say bears a certain date. I say if a voucher has a date upon it, it ought to be the date of payment as per cash-book or bank-book. If it does not, I say it is a document which is utterly worthless, because in many instances it has not been paid at all by cash-book or bank-book, and approximately will not come in. 64. You will observe these payments,, they say, were made?— The schedule says: "Salary paid to Nathaniel Seddon." Well, why do they not put the date of the payment down?

13—1. 9.